Talk:Sarkha

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarkha article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request

This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Administrators may disregard the above message.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Sarkha was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 24, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Yemen Low‑importance

	Yemen portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heraldry and vexillology

Sarkha is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

On 5 January 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Banner of Ansar Allah. The result of the discussion was not moved.

is the "Pan-Arab flag" image used in the article accurate?

On Pan-Arab colors it shows a different flag with different order of stripe. This flag looks like the Palestinian flag. PenneOnTheLeft (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Also the Pan-Arab flag generally has a smaller triangle. NingNonger (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether there's a "pan-Arab flag", but there's certainly a Flag of the Arab Revolt... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically semantics. The flag of the Arab revolt is often referred to as the pan-Arab flag, but arguably many other flags that use those colours are also pan-Arab flags (like Palestine, Jordan and especially the Ba'ath flag). The more important point is that the Houthis are certainly intending to fly a Palestine flag rather than a pan-Arab one. NingNonger (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unnecessary

Shouldn't this article be merged with the Houthi movement page? I don't see why this should be a separate article in the first place, since this is general information involving the Houthi Movement. 71.172.2.181 (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very prominent hate slogan and incitement to mass murder. If we can have an article on Fourteen Words, then we can have an article on the Houthi flag... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, it would be useless to just create an article on a topic that is:

-part of another article that has the same topic.

-mentioned and explained in the article.

In fact, this "article" is already went over in Houthi movement#Slogan and controversies. 100.1.61.2 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer Abo Yemen ✉ 15:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A new RM may be started any time due to this one being made by a sockpuppet. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 05:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan of the Houthi movement → Banner of Ansar Allah – →

Better description of current page.
More typical / consistent for other Wikipedia pages that apply to a single movement or entity.
"Banner" instead of "flag" because that seems to be the more common name.

I.M.B. (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The current title accurately describes the article's contents (namely, the slogan) and follows WP:COMMONNAME. The group is universally known as Houthi movement, a term also used by researchers as seen in various books and articles such as "The Huthi Movement in Yemen: Ideology, Ambition and Security in the Arab Gulf", "Tribes and Politics in Yemen: A History of the Houthi Conflict", and "The Houthi War Machine: From Guerrilla War to State Capture". Applodion (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the addition of "Ansar Allah" for the same reason stated at talk:Houthi movement but support the changing of "slogan" to "banner" Abo Yemen ✉ 09:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Houthi movement should be changed to just the "Houthis" per the ngram Abo Yemen ✉ 09:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ansar Allah" (helpers of God) is a vague name which is similar to the names of a number of other factions. "Houthi" is instantly identifying. AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarkha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Discussion

As far as I can see this is your first GAN, that is why I did not quickly failed the article evrn if it needs significant improvement to meet the six GA criteria, especially GA1b, GA3a, and GA4, and I think sourcing (GA2b) could also be improved. My principal concerns are the following:

(GA1b) According to our relevant rule, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Presently, the lead contains additional information in comparison with the main text, and the main text is not summarized in the article.
(GA3a) A reader who is unfamiliar with the background can hardly understand the article. The article should present the Houthi and their role in regional and international politics, especially their relationship with regional powers. The article should also explain each element of the slogan.
(GA4) The article fails to mention the view of those who are cursed by the slogan, and other (non-Hutsi) commentators.
(GA2b) Could you use some more academic sources to ensure that the article presents all relevant significant scholarly PoVs?

Do you think the above issues can be addressed in a week? Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka I'll try my best to fix the four main concerns above. I'll start with the lead first and add more background to the article. I'll also add more academic sources if I find any Abo Yemen ✉ 09:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found some academic sources that I could use. Should I add the background section before or after the design section? Abo Yemen ✉ 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to introduce a background section, you should begin the main text with it. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bet Abo Yemen ✉ 06:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka can I withdraw the nom? I think I am going to take much longer than that time to fix those issues. Ill renominate it when im done Abo Yemen ✉ 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or place it on hold Abo Yemen ✉ 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it on hold. Ping me when you have completed your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(GA4) The article fails to mention the view of those who are cursed by the slogan, and other (non-Hutsi) commentators.
@Borsoka like a criticism section? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, a separate section is the best approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka Ok this is a bit funny but I did not find a single source criticizing the slogan itself. All the sources I've found criticize the Houthis and not the slogan and they go along the lines of "Houthis have that slogan; They are not good people" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, that suggests that the slogan is not notable enough. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should also explain each element of the slogan

Done 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I have no choice but failing the article. This could be an interesting article, but our relevant policies (such as WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE) should be very rigirously followed taking into account the sensitivity of its subject. Perhaps you want to seek assistance at one of our wikiprojects (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics). Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix all the problems and hopefully renominate this in the future. Thank you for the review! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed unilateral move to "Sarkha"

This may be the most correct name in Arabic, but I very strongly doubt that it's the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I really don't know why this rename had to be pushed through unilaterally, without any discussion, much less a formal process. AnonMoos (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, I didn't think this would get any opposition. All the sources (that bother using the slogan's name) call it the Sarkha so I don't see why we should use a vague name Abo Yemen ✉ 14:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] some of the sources that mentions the name Abo Yemen ✉ 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the prose?

@Borsoka I just noticed that you've marked the "The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct" part of the review as failed. Could you specify what is wrong with it so I can fix it? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think some sentences could be split. Borsoka (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse be upon the Jews, Victory to Islam"

Edit: "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam"

Why this edit: Muslims do not hate jews. Muslims are taught to respect all religions in their childhood. What the saying is pointing out is that Zionism is a Curse upon the Jews, not the Jews themselves. Muslims are closest to Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians than any other faith. Cathay99 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: You should read the Sarkha#Design and symbolism section. Plus the translation that you're suggesting is wrong. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]